Consulting-The-pyramid-principle-2010-pdf

54

Exhibit 15 D扩ferences in the processes dictate Key Line points

Present Process JULY

JULY

Make 2 3

market Make 6-month Adjust in
forecast 一一一... Master Sched~!e 一一~ 1'l'l0 n th1y meeting

Recommended Process

JULY SEPTEMBER

2 l 4 5

Set policies •-+ Make Have
for inventory 6 month
Make 一...J Master expe竹 adjust 6
trend |ρvp. 1 只 Schedule
forecast before monthly Fine tune
3
一一→ meeting 一一一-+ In meetlng
Make
firm market
一一一-+ forecast

Recommended Structure

00 forecasting
later in year

Mgu ves-eotu仨 V山mMm Sqpudb
ypn~rseD
」 eM
S b 巴 h m ‘ e a d 旧 u川 Use formal process
其 队 v d a 创 to decide monthly
U 旷n VJE reVlslons
Q 汀 阳 ‘B ·
·
UU e 区 汁 旧 盯H 俨 怡 m u『 o- a
V
nl 山 让H
'
L叫u

v

门

Choosing Among Alternatives

Frequently managers ask their subordinates to analyze a problem and come up with
a solution, adding 'í\nd let me see your alternatives." Strictly speaking, as you will
see in Chapter 8 when we discuss problem definition, there is no such thing as an
alternative solution to a problem, provided the problem has been properly defined.
Either what you recommend will solve the problem or it will not, and in that sense
there are no alternatives.

What the manager actually means is "Give me an idea of the different things we
could try if you cannot devise a solution that totally solves the problem as we have

55

defined it." Thus the only time you should have to write a memo that deals with
genuine alternatives is when they are known by the reader in advance, probably

because they have been under discussion in the company. In that case the intro-

duction is very easy to structure:

s = We want to do X

C = 1月Ve have alternative ways of doing it

Q = Which one makes the most sense?

Or to put meat on it:

S= As you know, the recent ruling that a 5-105 HP motor is the

most efficient for drilling oil in cold temperatures has led our
largest customer to announce that he will switch from using
our 10 HP motor to our competitor恒 73/4 HP muàel.

C= We have three possible responses:
- Cut the price of our 10 HP motor to 也没 of our 71/2 HP
- Reengineer the 71/2 HP to make it match the 73/4 HP
- Purpose-design a 5-105 HP

Q = Which one makes the most sense?

Once you select an alternative, you generally have two ways in which you can struc-
ture the Key Li ne to answer why that alternative is better than the others, depending
on what your analysis tells you. The best and easiest way to do it, if you can, is to
structure it around the criteria you used to make the judgment:

Select C

It is faster It is easier
than A or B to implement

The trouble, of course, is that C is not always better than A or B on all three criteria.
In that case, you can only present your argument by making a statement about each
alternative:

Select C

C gives us 口u -lq eraω qu0eO·AU
everything but... h
υ ωu

户U

56

In other words, you state the rnajor reason you selected C, and the rnajor reason you
dropped both A and B.
By contrast, you can run into a situation where none of the alternatives wiU give you
what you want; or, if there were no alternatives known in advance, no action you can
recornrnend will give you everything you want to achieve with your solution. In
those cases the Question is either still '"句 hich?" or "飞叫lhat should \ve do?" and the
answer would be:

It depends on what
you decide you want

Choose A Choose B Choose C
if what you want if what you want if what you want
is steady sales is quick profits is labor peace

Note that even here you are not structuring around 飞 lternative ways to solve the
problern," but rather around 飞 lternative objectives," which is quite a different thing.

57

SOME COMMON PATTERNS-CONSULTING

COI创叫n1

they are longer and 出they are written mainl抄ytωo lns抖pire action. Thus, whether the docu-
ment is a memorandum, report, presentation, or proposal, a consultant is usually
answenng υniy the first three of the four questions cited in Exhibit 10.i explain how

to think about consulting documents in great detail in Chapters 8 and 9, Defining

the Problcm and Sfrucfuring thr Analysis of thr ProMEm.Here I want to touch briefly
on the most common:

~! Letters of Proposal
~! Progress Reviews

Letters of Proposal

These documents are the lifeblood of consulting, and have thus had a good deal of
thought lavished on them over the years by consulting firms. Most firms follow this
approach:

s = You have a problem (1 or 2 sentence description of

the problem)

C = You have decided to bring in an outsider to solve it
Q = (Are you the outsider we should hire to solve it?)

The Answer to the implied Question is always "yes," of course, generally followed
by a 4-part structure:

1. We understand the problem
2. We have a sound approach for solving it
3. We have enormous experience in applying that approach
4. Our business arrangements make sense

In putting words on the introductory structure, you tend to imply the Complication
and the Question, so that it might read something like this:

We were delighted to meet with you to discuss the problem you are having
in determining the best way to tackle the automotive aftermarket, in the face
of conflicting points of view within the company This document outlines
our proposal for helping you sort through these alternatives and develop
a strategy that will permit you to gain a sizable share in a short time.

This way of structuring a proposal is generally used for new clients, where the
consultant wants to devote considerable attention to explaining the problem in
such a way that his obvious expertise in the area becomes apparent to the reader.

58

In situations where the client is well known or the proposal is merely a formality, you

will probably find it cleaner to put the description of the problem in the introduction,

as 1 explain more fully in Chapter 8, Defining the Problem.

s = You have a problem (3-4 paragraph explanation)

C = You want consulting help to solve it

Q H01Vυ.7111770ugo 址、out helping us solve our problem?

In this case the rest of the document is structured around the approach the consul-
tant \vill takε to sol飞儿 ~g th芒 p!"0b1em, 011 出e theory th{ü it is on the basis of the
approach that the client will make his decision to hire. (Although alas that is not
always the case.) This structure encourages the \vriter to weave the examples of his
experience in with the explanation of how and why he plans to take the parti<:ular
approach he is describing. The business arrangements are generally placed in a cov-
ering lette!".

Progress Reviews

Progress Reviews are usually the formal C0111nlUnications one schedules with a client
or a superior at the end of each phase of a project, often leading up to a final report.
After the first one, the structure is always the same

The first one will say something like this:

S = We have been working on X problem

C = We told you that step one in the analysis would be to
determine whether Y is the case. We have now done that.

Q = What did you find?

Once this presentation has been made, the recipient will have a particular reaction.

Perhaps he will ask you to investigate an anomaly you have uncovered in your work,
。r he may approve what you've done and tell you to move on to phase two. At the

time of your next progress review, then, you might say something like this:

S = In our last progress review we told you that you had a
capacity problem

C= You said you thought this would not be a problem long
because you believed your competition was shortly going out
of business. You asked us to investigate whether that were
indeed the case. We have now completed our investigation.

Q 二 (What did you find?)

A = We found that you will still have a capacity problem,

only worse.

59

Or to put it in skeletal form:

S = We told you X

C 二 You asked us to investigate Y, which we have done
Q = What did you find?

(You wiII find reallife examples of introductions to consulting documents in

Appendix B, Exa 叫)les of Introdωory Struct 盯es.)

1 hope this discussion of opening introductions has made you think
that it is important to devote sufficient thought to ensuring that you write a good
introduction. For as you can gather from the examples, a gooà introàuction àoes
more than simply gain and hold the reader's interest. It influences his perceptions.

The narrative flow lends a feeling of plausibility tu the writer's particular interpreta-
tion of the situation, which by its nature must be a biased selection of the relevant
facts. This feeling of plausibility constricts the reader's ability to interpret the situa-

tion differently, in n1uch the same way that a triallawye比 opening statement seeks

to give the jury a fran1ework in which to receive the evidence to come.

The story flow also gives a sense of inevitable rightness to the logic of the writer's
conclusion, making the reader less inclined to argue with the thinking that follows.
And throughout, it establishes the writer's attitude to the reader as a considerate one
of wanting him clearly to understand the situation-to see behind the story to the
reality it represents.

60

5

DE-
DUCTION

AND
INDUCTION:
THE DIFFEREf'.JCE

As 附川川ha肝ve肌d…e…m创n

of the exact relationships between a group of ideas on the sarne su问bJ缸ect. Prope盯r1y忖
organized, these ideas wiU always form a pyran1id, with the various levels of
abstraction established and related under a single thought.
Ideas in the pyramid relate in three ways-up, down, and sideways. An idea above a
grouping surnmarizes the ideas below, while these ideas in turn explain or defend
the point above. At the same tin1e, the ideas in the grouping rnarch sideways in
logical order. What constitutes logical order differs depending on whether the pyra-
mided group was forrned deductively ör inductively.
These two forrns of reasoning are the only patterns available for establishing logical

relationships between ideas. Consequently, an understanding of how they differ and

what their rules are is essential to being able to sort out your thinking and express
it clearly in writing.

Briefly, the difference is as shown in Exhibit 16. Oeduction presents a line of reason-

ing that leads to a "therefore" conclusion, and the point above is a sun1mary of that
line of reasoning, resting heavily on the final point. Induction defines a group of
facts or ideas to be the same kind of thing, and then makes a staternent (or inference)
about that sameness. The deductive points derive frorn each other; the inductive
points do not.

事些

61

These differences are really quite enormous, as the next two sections will demon-
strate. But once you have digested them, you should have little difficulty in recogniz-
ing or sorting out either form of reasoning, or in choosing the one that appropriately
permits you to say clearly what you mean.

&hibit 16 Deduction d扩fers from induction

I fly because
I am a bird

Birds fly 十→ iI am a bird 十→ Ferefore I fl y

H UJUF'A fLι，， •-•-U, ρL r'ρ OPDAUH Hο
L A
U

Poland is about
to be invaded

bγtanks

French tan ks German tan ks Russian tanks
are at the Pol ish are at the Pol ish are at the Polish
border border border

DEDUCTIVE REASONING

Dedω叫ωl础.旧d巾仄1uc仙川川t …

P严refers to use in most of its 山thinking， possibly because it is easier to construct than
inductive reasoning. In any case, it is usually the pattern one follows in problem
solving, and therefore the one people attempt to follow in communicating their
thinking. But while it is a useful way to think, it is a ponderous way to write, as
1 shall hope to show.